Sedevacantists and Akita

[Miriam_M]

Laity or vagi clergy can assert whatever they like, but until and unless the Church definitively settles the matter, any such assertion will remain simply a private opinion.

Have no clue what vagi clergy means.  Otherwise, yes:  Until and Unless.

I want to mention a few other things:

1.  I think there is a tendency among us trads -- and often we don't recognize it because it is a natural reflex and often subconscious -- to make definitive statements since the Church leadership is so wantonly mute. Refusing to lead, as reprehensible as it is, does not allow others (unappointed people) the automatic authority to step in. I'm not accusing anyone on the forum of this; I'm just admitting that I have seen such an impulse in myself and others IRL.

Modern clergy seem incapable of responding Yes or No to matters clearly needing a definitive response, and I get how frustrating that is. But we also can't transfer our frustration to our fellow trads.  It sometimes seems as if those who affiliate with the SV position are transferring that frustration to their Catholic brothers and sisters, making the latter accountable for Yes and No, instead of directing that (legitimate) demand where it belongs.

2.  Clarification on an earlier remark of mine about the NOM environment in which I sometimes experienced greater Eucharistic grace than when receiving at a TLM (and I attributed that to my own disposition). In most NOM environments it would be near to impossible for me to have a proper disposition.  I am very affected by my immediate environment, but especially at Mass.  What interferes with communion with a small "c" at most NOM's is the atmosphere (lack of disposition) of many of the other attendees.  How is it possible to filter out chatty, grinning, demonstrative, and physically active people within a few rows of oneself? What it does for the Catholic trying to concentrate is drive up the Anger Index.

Second problem is the sometimes dramatic shift in body language when a NOM congregation approaches HC.  Even when they are composed and focused before HC, their behavior after the Agnus Dei/Lamb of God is scandalous. Recently I was attending one such Mass at a local church, although it wasn't the Mass I was assisting at that day, which was a TLM.  The entire congregation suddenly converged toward the center aisle without any hint of reverence whatsoever.  It was as if it was a City Council meeting open to the public, and all had been advised to exit quickly due to a possible hazard in the hall. Very, very casual body language, no hands folded or arms at side:  at the very moment that they should be most reverent they were the least reverent.

The very different setting I was referring to was opposite.  Mass was always dark, lit with only candles, and all of the congregation was contained, silent, and highly reverent.  There was order, and people approached HC row by row, respectfully. No mass exodus toward the nearest Exit sign. It was far quieter than most TLM's, actually.

3. I think we have to consider also what the uncharitable effect is of telling other Catholics, or even implying to them, that they have not received sacramental graces. 

[awkward customer]

Pope Pius XII infallibly declared what is required in the sacramental form for the consecration of a bishop. Paul VI changed the form. His new form does not match what Pius XII declared is required for validity. It matches the Anglican form which Pope Leo XIII declared to be utterly null and void. Therefore it's reasonable to assert that bishops consecrated in the new form are not valid the same as a baptism is not valid if the priest says, "We baptize" instead of "I baptize".

What a relief.  A quiet voice of sanity and reason among all the kerfuffle.

To all those who object to questions being raised about the validity of NO bishops, priests and sacraments -

- are you sure that the NO Rite for the consecration of bishops is valid?   

[awkward customer]

I like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada) ....

What?

Forcing a feeding tube into the stomach of someone with lifelong Bulimia whose body has been destroyed by the ravages of that condition, who is effectively brain dead and who is being forced to breathe by a machine, could easily count as cruel and unusual punishment in some quarters.

At any rate, such treatment, given involuntarily, goes way beyond what the Church has traditionally described as 'Extaordinary' treatment, which we are entitled to refuse.

Fr Cekada was one of the few, sane commentators who pointed this out, thank goodness.

[awkward customer]

Do people really base their rejection of the Sede position on the personality traits and foibles of Sede clergy?

[Bonaventure]

(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome even intellectually.
(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either.  If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."

We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what he is doing and the state of his office and his soul.

The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.

Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.

Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly.

Let's say that sedevacantists are right for this argument.
Bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI are not valid and therefore, none of the priests they've ordained are valid.

Therefore, none of the priests in question are actual priests and none of their sacraments are valid. Lay people have an obligation to receive valid sacraments. If they are going to these lay priests, they are not receiving valid sacraments and are therefore, in unknowing disobedience to God. If the above scenario is true, would you agree that lay people do have an obligation to make a change to ensure they receive valid sacraments?

(I separated out the non sequiturs for emphasis.)  There would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced. 

A rite is a change in certain externals of form; it is not a change in doctrine.  What priests are allowed to say -- and have said -- are observations or perceptions of the efficacy of certain rites.  Thus, Fr. Ripperger has weighed in on the superior form of the traditional rite of baptism, largely because of the extensive exorcisms and the general thoroughness of it.  Ditto for him and other priests when it comes to Extreme Unction vs. the (new) Anointing of the Sick.

Superiority of form is a separate matter than validity.  Validity for a sacrament consists of essential form and essential matter.  Thus, we must hear, "I absolve you..in the name of...[etc.]" at the end of our Confession, and we have a right to insist on having our real sins heard and not hear an abusive priest dismiss our recital "because one sin is enough." Maybe the second sin is a mortal one; how would he know that?  I mean technically, the matter is our sorrow/contrition, but he needs to know: contrition for what?  Or he will not be able to act as the judge in persona Christi.

Many modern priests use a variety of "rites" for Confession, and we've all been there:  more often than not, such confessions are highly disappointing, to say the least. But if they meet the bare minimum requirements for matter and form (including our part), then the sacrament has been administered and received, albeit not ideally or as profoundly as possible.

But because the Sacrament of Penance seems to be subject to the most regular abuse by diocesan priests, I do avoid their confessionals if possible.  That said, the most powerful confessional experience I ever had was to a very holy diocesan-ordained priest whose adult Masses and children's Masses I attended regularly when my children were little.  I also studied with him in theology school, which was how I got to know him. In confession, he read my soul.  He was the only priest to have done that, and I have never had that experience before or after that.  When a priest reads your soul, you know without question that Jesus Christ is present in that moment...unless you're like the ancient Romans and believe superstitiously in divination. Or -- and I know this is a sensitive word but it applies in this case -- if one believes that one has Gnostic knowledge about the efficacy of newer sacramental rites that the rest of us lack.

There have been a few occasions in which I have received more sacramental graces at a very reverent N.O.M. Holy Communion (in the past) than at a TLM.  The only difference in those particular cases?  My disposition.

These differences and exceptions are not meant to blur the clear differences between old and new rites.  I offer them in sincere disclosure but also to illustrate how important it is not to arrogate to ourselves judgments that only the Church can make about validity of sacraments.  We should always seek the highest rite we can for the fullness of graces available -- contingent upon our disposition - but validity itself is an absolute quality, not a matter of degree. A rite is valid or invalid, not valid or "questionable."  Form and matter.

Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated."  He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest.  He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.

Pope Pius XII infallibly declared what is required in the sacramental form for the consecration of a bishop. Paul VI changed the form. His new form does not match what Pius XII declared is required for validity. It matches the Anglican form which Pope Leo XIII declared to be utterly null and void. Therefore it's reasonable to assert that bishops consecrated in the new form are not valid the same as a baptism is not valid if the priest says, "We baptize" instead of "I baptize".

Laity or vagi clergy can assert whatever they like, but until and unless the Church definitively settles the matter, any such assertion will remain simply a private opinion.

I like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada), and the Prefect of Sanborn's seminary (Despósito), has stated that one "una cum Mass" is more offensive to Almighty God than every single abortion in the history of mankind. (Source: https://x.com/frdesposito/status/434837570053087232?s=46)

Funnily enough, that would mean that the una cum ordination rite and subsequent Mass of his superior and the man who ordained him (Sanborn) was also more offensive to Almighty God, than aforementioned abortions.

If one reads Fr Cekada's explanation for his position he used Catholic teaching to come to it.  And nowhere did he say Michael Schiavo had a "God given right to murder his wife".

Here is what he said and wrote on this very forum:

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=10617.0

I think one could conclude either way if people lost the emotion involved.

As for the una cum issue even the more moderate sede Clergy responses to it say....its ok if it's the only mass available. 

He did say that Michael had the authority from God to make the decision that he made. Did you read the link you posted?

Further, in my opinion, Mrs. Schiavo's husband (as horrible a person as he seems to be) — and not her parents — had the sole right before God to deter-mine whether these means should have continued to be used.

[Bonaventure]

I like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada) ....

What?

Forcing a feeding tube into the stomach of someone with lifelong Bulimia whose body has been destroyed by the ravages of that condition, who is effectively brain dead and who is being forced to breathe by a machine, could easily count as cruel and unusual punishment in some quarters.

At any rate, such treatment, given involuntarily, goes way beyond what the Church has traditionally described as 'Extaordinary' treatment, which we are entitled to refuse.

Fr Cekada was one of the few, sane commentators who pointed this out, thank goodness.

Michael Schiavo did not simply decide to remove the feeding tube, but all food and water, even from the mouth.

The SSPV thoroughly refuted Cekada's argument.

https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/the-execution-of-terri-schiavo-1

As Dr. James Gebel said:

9) Oral or stomach tube feeding via an "NG" (nasogastric tube) (a tube put down one's throat to the stomach) or (more commonly) via a "G-tube" are routinely used to feed stroke victims, both temporarily and indefinitely in patients with stroke or other brain injuries who cannot feed themselves, whether due to swallowing problems (which occur at least temporarily in most stroke victims). Such feeding and hydration are by modern medical standards considered as ordinary and unburdensome as eating and drinking on one's own. Such feedings are, in fact, less expensive than what an average American spends on food and water, and are easily administered a few times a day by a family member, requiring much less effort than cooking three meals a day. Terri Schiavo's husband, parents, or siblings could easily administer such feedings. They are by no logical measure extraordinary or unduly burdensome by any reasonable standard (moral, medical, or economic).

[Baylee]

(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome even intellectually.
(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either.  If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."

We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what he is doing and the state of his office and his soul.

The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.

Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.

Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly.

Let's say that sedevacantists are right for this argument.
Bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI are not valid and therefore, none of the priests they've ordained are valid.

Therefore, none of the priests in question are actual priests and none of their sacraments are valid. Lay people have an obligation to receive valid sacraments. If they are going to these lay priests, they are not receiving valid sacraments and are therefore, in unknowing disobedience to God. If the above scenario is true, would you agree that lay people do have an obligation to make a change to ensure they receive valid sacraments?

(I separated out the non sequiturs for emphasis.)  There would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced. 

A rite is a change in certain externals of form; it is not a change in doctrine.  What priests are allowed to say -- and have said -- are observations or perceptions of the efficacy of certain rites.  Thus, Fr. Ripperger has weighed in on the superior form of the traditional rite of baptism, largely because of the extensive exorcisms and the general thoroughness of it.  Ditto for him and other priests when it comes to Extreme Unction vs. the (new) Anointing of the Sick.

Superiority of form is a separate matter than validity.  Validity for a sacrament consists of essential form and essential matter.  Thus, we must hear, "I absolve you..in the name of...[etc.]" at the end of our Confession, and we have a right to insist on having our real sins heard and not hear an abusive priest dismiss our recital "because one sin is enough." Maybe the second sin is a mortal one; how would he know that?  I mean technically, the matter is our sorrow/contrition, but he needs to know: contrition for what?  Or he will not be able to act as the judge in persona Christi.

Many modern priests use a variety of "rites" for Confession, and we've all been there:  more often than not, such confessions are highly disappointing, to say the least. But if they meet the bare minimum requirements for matter and form (including our part), then the sacrament has been administered and received, albeit not ideally or as profoundly as possible.

But because the Sacrament of Penance seems to be subject to the most regular abuse by diocesan priests, I do avoid their confessionals if possible.  That said, the most powerful confessional experience I ever had was to a very holy diocesan-ordained priest whose adult Masses and children's Masses I attended regularly when my children were little.  I also studied with him in theology school, which was how I got to know him. In confession, he read my soul.  He was the only priest to have done that, and I have never had that experience before or after that.  When a priest reads your soul, you know without question that Jesus Christ is present in that moment...unless you're like the ancient Romans and believe superstitiously in divination. Or -- and I know this is a sensitive word but it applies in this case -- if one believes that one has Gnostic knowledge about the efficacy of newer sacramental rites that the rest of us lack.

There have been a few occasions in which I have received more sacramental graces at a very reverent N.O.M. Holy Communion (in the past) than at a TLM.  The only difference in those particular cases?  My disposition.

These differences and exceptions are not meant to blur the clear differences between old and new rites.  I offer them in sincere disclosure but also to illustrate how important it is not to arrogate to ourselves judgments that only the Church can make about validity of sacraments.  We should always seek the highest rite we can for the fullness of graces available -- contingent upon our disposition - but validity itself is an absolute quality, not a matter of degree. A rite is valid or invalid, not valid or "questionable."  Form and matter.

Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated."  He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest.  He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.

Pope Pius XII infallibly declared what is required in the sacramental form for the consecration of a bishop. Paul VI changed the form. His new form does not match what Pius XII declared is required for validity. It matches the Anglican form which Pope Leo XIII declared to be utterly null and void. Therefore it's reasonable to assert that bishops consecrated in the new form are not valid the same as a baptism is not valid if the priest says, "We baptize" instead of "I baptize".

Laity or vagi clergy can assert whatever they like, but until and unless the Church definitively settles the matter, any such assertion will remain simply a private opinion.

I like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada), and the Prefect of Sanborn's seminary (Despósito), has stated that one "una cum Mass" is more offensive to Almighty God than every single abortion in the history of mankind. (Source: https://x.com/frdesposito/status/434837570053087232?s=46)

Funnily enough, that would mean that the una cum ordination rite and subsequent Mass of his superior and the man who ordained him (Sanborn) was also more offensive to Almighty God, than aforementioned abortions.

If one reads Fr Cekada's explanation for his position he used Catholic teaching to come to it.  And nowhere did he say Michael Schiavo had a "God given right to murder his wife".

Here is what he said and wrote on this very forum:

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=10617.0

I think one could conclude either way if people lost the emotion involved.

As for the una cum issue even the more moderate sede Clergy responses to it say....its ok if it's the only mass available. 

He did say that Michael had the authority from God to make the decision that he made. Did you read the link you posted?

Further, in my opinion, Mrs. Schiavo's husband (as horrible a person as he seems to be) — and not her parents — had the sole right before God to deter-mine whether these means should have continued to be used.

Yes, I did.  Notice he did not say he had the right to "murder" her.  That was your wording.   

[Bonaventure]

Cekada stated that Michael had the right to make the decision he made, which led to the murder of Terri.

You can call it whatever you like. The reality is that, only his closest confreres, Sanborn and Dolan, agreed with him.

The CMRI, SSPV, SSPX, Vatican, Etc. all disagreed.

Do you attend an "una cum Mass?" Do you know that, if you do, those clergy with whom Cekada aligned himself (at SGG and MHT) will deny you the sacraments?

My original point stands.

[Baylee]

Cekada stated that Michael had the right to make the decision he made, which led to the murder of Terri.

You can call it whatever you like. The reality is that, only his closest confreres, Sanborn and Dolan, agreed with him.

The CMRI, SSPV, SSPX, Vatican, Etc. all disagreed.

Do you attend an "una cum Mass?" Do you know that, if you do, those clergy with whom Cekada aligned himself (at SGG and MHT) will deny you the sacraments?

My original point stands.

Yes, you keep pushing the false accusation that Fr Cekada approved murder. 

[Bonaventure]

Cekada stated that Michael had the right to make the decision he made, which led to the murder of Terri.

You can call it whatever you like. The reality is that, only his closest confreres, Sanborn and Dolan, agreed with him.

The CMRI, SSPV, SSPX, Vatican, Etc. all disagreed.

Do you attend an "una cum Mass?" Do you know that, if you do, those clergy with whom Cekada aligned himself (at SGG and MHT) will deny you the sacraments?

My original point stands.

Yes, you keep pushing the false accusation that Fr Cekada approved murder. 

It's not false.

He stated what Michael did was licit. He was wrong.

[Baylee]

Cekada stated that Michael had the right to make the decision he made, which led to the murder of Terri.

You can call it whatever you like. The reality is that, only his closest confreres, Sanborn and Dolan, agreed with him.

The CMRI, SSPV, SSPX, Vatican, Etc. all disagreed.

Do you attend an "una cum Mass?" Do you know that, if you do, those clergy with whom Cekada aligned himself (at SGG and MHT) will deny you the sacraments?

My original point stands.

Yes, you keep pushing the false accusation that Fr Cekada approved murder. 

It's not false.

He stated what Michael did was licit. He was wrong.

Fr Cekada did not approve murder.  If he thought it was "murder" he wouldn't have approved it.  And anyone who can look at this objectively can see that saying he approved murder is a false accusation.   

[Bonaventure]

You can call it whatever you like. Cekada approved the denial of food and water to Terri Schiavo, directly and immediately resulting in her death.

[Baylee]

I like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada) ....

What?

Forcing a feeding tube into the stomach of someone with lifelong Bulimia whose body has been destroyed by the ravages of that condition, who is effectively brain dead and who is being forced to breathe by a machine, could easily count as cruel and unusual punishment in some quarters.

At any rate, such treatment, given involuntarily, goes way beyond what the Church has traditionally described as 'Extaordinary' treatment, which we are entitled to refuse.

Fr Cekada was one of the few, sane commentators who pointed this out, thank goodness.

Michael Schiavo did not simply decide to remove the feeding tube, but all food and water, even from the mouth.

The SSPV thoroughly refuted Cekada's argument.

https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/the-execution-of-terri-schiavo-1

As Dr. James Gebel said:

9) Oral or stomach tube feeding via an "NG" (nasogastric tube) (a tube put down one's throat to the stomach) or (more commonly) via a "G-tube" are routinely used to feed stroke victims, both temporarily and indefinitely in patients with stroke or other brain injuries who cannot feed themselves, whether due to swallowing problems (which occur at least temporarily in most stroke victims). Such feeding and hydration are by modern medical standards considered as ordinary and unburdensome as eating and drinking on one's own. Such feedings are, in fact, less expensive than what an average American spends on food and water, and are easily administered a few times a day by a family member, requiring much less effort than cooking three meals a day. Terri Schiavo's husband, parents, or siblings could easily administer such feedings. They are by no logical measure extraordinary or unduly burdensome by any reasonable standard (moral, medical, or economic).

OK, so Fr Jenkins came up with a different conclusion while also applying Catholic principles.  However, in the matter of the New Rites (which is what we were discussing before you brought up the Schiavo case) they both agree.  In fact, all of the sede clergy agree with him on the New Rites.

[Baylee]

Do people really base their rejection of the Sede position on the personality traits and foibles of Sede clergy?

And emotional reasons.  Don't forget the emotion.

[awkward customer]

I like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada) ....

What?

Forcing a feeding tube into the stomach of someone with lifelong Bulimia whose body has been destroyed by the ravages of that condition, who is effectively brain dead and who is being forced to breathe by a machine, could easily count as cruel and unusual punishment in some quarters.

At any rate, such treatment, given involuntarily, goes way beyond what the Church has traditionally described as 'Extaordinary' treatment, which we are entitled to refuse.

Fr Cekada was one of the few, sane commentators who pointed this out, thank goodness.

Michael Schiavo did not simply decide to remove the feeding tube, but all food and water, even from the mouth.

The SSPV thoroughly refuted Cekada's argument.

https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/the-execution-of-terri-schiavo-1

As Dr. James Gebel said:

9) Oral or stomach tube feeding via an "NG" (nasogastric tube) (a tube put down one's throat to the stomach) or (more commonly) via a "G-tube" are routinely used to feed stroke victims, both temporarily and indefinitely in patients with stroke or other brain injuries who cannot feed themselves, whether due to swallowing problems (which occur at least temporarily in most stroke victims). Such feeding and hydration are by modern medical standards considered as ordinary and unburdensome as eating and drinking on one's own. Such feedings are, in fact, less expensive than what an average American spends on food and water, and are easily administered a few times a day by a family member, requiring much less effort than cooking three meals a day. Terri Schiavo's husband, parents, or siblings could easily administer such feedings. They are by no logical measure extraordinary or unduly burdensome by any reasonable standard (moral, medical, or economic).

Dr James Gebel never examined Terry Schiavo in person, according to Fr Cekada. He made his assessment from video footage and copies of scans and medical reports alone.

Plus, are we basing our definitions of Ordinary and Extraordinary treatment on what the Conciliar Church says?  I understand that it was JPII who decided that feeding tubes constituted Ordinary treatment.

So, here is Fr Cedaka's response to Dr Gebel. (from the site you linked to.)

Dear Dr. Gebel,

Someone forwarded to me your comments about my articles on the Schiavo case..

A number of other people involved in health care have written to me about the medical aspects of the case.

I not qualified to decide whether your medical opinion or other conflicting medical opinions about PVS, therapy, etc. are more in accord with the principles of medical science.

But common sense tells me that the method you used to arrive at your opinion -- reviewing CT images, watching a video and reviewing summary/excerpts regarding testimony given in deposition transcripts -- is no substitute for examining a live patient.

Unlike other doctors directly involved in the case, moreover, you have not been cross-examined on either your methods or your conclusions. Be that as it may, I am qualified to speak about the moral issues in the case, and indeed, I am also obliged to do so.

If what you seem to be claiming is true and Terri Schiavo was somehow able to eat and drink by natural means, there is no dispute that those who cared for her would have been obliged to provide her with food and drink. To have withheld these would have been a mortal sin (unjust direct homicide) against the Fifth Commandment.

However, my writings on the Schiavo case centered on something else: the principles that Catholic moral theology would apply to removing a feeding tube.

I do not want my parishioners to be left with the impression -- due to the high emotions and bitter controversy fanned by the morally bankrupt media and by various lay and clerical grandstanders -- that something is a mortal sin when it is not.

Who knows when any one of my flock may be called upon to deal with the issue of a feeding tube for himself or a family member?

Here, put very bluntly, are the two essential questions in moral theology that I have sought to resolve:

(1) Does the Fifth Commandment under pain of mortal sin always require a sick person who is unable to eat or drink by natural means to have a doctor shove a tube into his nose or poke a hole into his stomach in order to provide food and water?

(2) Does the Fifth Commandment under pain of mortal sin then always forbid such a person to have these tubes removed, no matter what grave burdens -- pain, revulsion, depression, expense, etc. -- their continued use may impose on him or another?

The answer to both questions is no.

Having a hole poked in you, a tube shoved in and then having to eat and drink that way would be burdensome for any normal man.

Like the IV drip mentioned by the moral theologian McFadden (whom I quoted elsewhere), one could maintain this procedure would be morally compulsory "as a temporary means of carrying a person through a critical period."

"Surely," however, "any effort to sustain life permanently in this fashion would constitute a grave hardship." (Medical Ethics, 1958, p.269.)

(Perhaps some priest, layman or doctor who rejects this conclusion could get his own feeding tube inserted, live that way for fifteen years, and let us all know in 2020 whether the experience was a grave hardship or not. Any takers?)

Insisting (as some have done in the Schiavo case) that one is bound to this under pain of mortal sin (otherwise, euthanasia! murder!) contradicts Pius XII's teaching that one is bound only to use "ordinary means," which he defined as those "that do not involve any grave burdens for oneself or another."

Imposing "a more strict obligation," the pontiff warned, "would be too burdensome for most people and would render the attainment of a higher, more important good too difficult."

So, even though as a doctor you may well consider poking holes into people and inserting permanent feeding tubes "by no logical measure extraordinary or unduly burdensome by any reasonable standard, moral, medical or economic," Catholics must nevertheless draw their understanding of extraordinary means from the Church's moral teachings -- rather than from the practices and pronouncements of the medical-industrial complex.

In sum, by the standards of Catholic moral theology, the permanent use of a feeding tube constitutes extraordinary means and is therefore not obligatory. Like all such means, one is free to use it, "as long as one does not fail in some more serious duty." (Pius XII)

But one cannot maintain that a Catholic is always bound to use a feeding tube under pain of mortal sin – still less, that the refusal to do so constitutes "murder."

Don't try to invent a mortal sin where there is none.

Something that frequently gets overlooked is that Terry Schiavo had the eating disorder Bulimia which is likely to have been the result of childhood trauma.  I can only imagine the distress that someone with this condition would experience as a result of being of being continuously fed through a tube inserted into her stomach.  Her family were entitled to object to the withdrawal of the machinery that kept their traumatised daughter breathing, but it was her husband who had the final say, traditionally speaking.

I agree that a feeding tube could be a temporary measure following a stroke, for example, and where recovery is possible.  But as a means of prolonging life indefinitely, that's a different matter, especially when there is no indication that recovery is possible in any way.